Amendment to retirement age rule invalid: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, August 14

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has invalidated the amendment reducing the retirement age for cooperative society employees from 60 to 58 years. The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma ruled that the amendment contravened the provisions of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, which mandates legislative approval for such changes.

The case arose when several employees challenged the amendment, arguing it was enacted without the requisite legislative oversight. The petitioners contended that the reduction in retirement age not only violated their rights, but also lacked necessary approval from the State Legislature.

The ruling is significant as it calls attention to the necessity of adhering to established legislative procedures to protect employees’ rights and maintain the integrity of service regulations. It reaffirms the critical importance of following statutory requirements when amending service rules and stressing on the need for transparency and adherence to legal norms in administrative decisions affecting employees.

In its detailed judgment, the Bench observed: “The amendment to Rule 19(A) was enacted without adhering to the procedural requirements under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act. Specifically, the provisions of the Act require that any modifications affecting service rules be presented to and approved by the State Legislature. The failure to comply with this requirement has rendered the amendment legally ineffective.”

Referring to the importance of legislative approval, the Bench asserted the procedural safeguard of requiring legislative approval was fundamental to ensuring transparency and accountability in the process of amending service rules. The requirement ensured changes affecting employees’ rights were subject to proper scrutiny and public accountability.”

Examining the impact of the amendment, the Bench asserted the sudden reduction in the retirement age could have significant financial and professional repercussions for the employees. Such a change, implemented without the necessary legislative process, undermined the stability and predictability of employment terms and conditions.

Before parting with the order, the Bench declared the amendment to Rule 19(A) void. It observed: “The amendment is hereby declared null and void. The retirement age shall be restored to 60 years as per the previous rule.”